You may not realize this, but wind power is already at cost parity with coal fired power plants. Solar power is expected to reach coal parity around 2012. So it's not as far fetched or as far into the future as you think.
Also, I know this has been posted plenty of times, but we can actually replace 100% of our electricity needs in the US with a 100 miles squared (10,000 square miles) of PV cells in the Western US deserts. To put that in perspective, the Mojave desert is 54,000 square miles. Now most of our fossil fuels usage actually comes from the transportation sector, so we need to address that with electric cars too, but I think you get the picture.
The only question is how quickly do you want to get there. With government investment or mandates, there are higher short term costs to the economy and the benefit is that we will get there faster and we will lock in many of the patents that will allow us to capture the bulk of the wealth as the world converts to sustainable energy sources. So short term the costs are higher, but the longer term benefits to this country are much greater.
Or if you are a die-hard laissez fare economist, then no government involvement means we'll still get there as solar reaches coal parity and electric cars reach scale and costs come down, but it will happen a lot slower and we may not own most of the patents, which means the wealth from all the sustainable energy sectors will go to other countries that were smarter about their energy policies. So short term, the costs are a lot lower, but longer term, we won't get much of the wealth coming from these new technologies.
So which camp do you want to be in? |
